MANILA, Philippines — Until he submits the required documents proving that he has no connection to Philippine offshore gaming operators (Pogo) hubs, former Presidential spokesperson Lawyer Harry Roque was held in contempt again and was ordered detained in the House of Representatives.
The motion made by Bukidnon 2nd District Rep. Jonathan Keith Flores was approved by Surigao del Norte Rep. Ace Barbers during the the House quad committee hearing on Thursday.
This was after Roque’s continued noncompliance with the lower chamber’s subpoena.
“I move that we hold Harry Roque in contempt for refusing to submit the documents subject of this subpoena, of which he has manifested that he was going to submit to this committee,” Flores said.
READ MORE:
House panel cites Roque for contempt, invites Duterte anew
Harry Roque, 11 others: Pogo ‘persons of interest’ on BI lookout
Pagcor chief to Senate: Harry Roque legal counsel for raided Pogo hub
Documents like Roque’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) will be crucial to determining if he indeed did not profit from Pogo hubs, according to Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro.
The panel previously denied Roque’s motion to quash the subpoena it issued against him.
Flores also moved that Roque be detained until he submits the documents or until the quad committee is dissolved. Barbers also approved this motion.
READ MORE: Quad-committee junks Roque’s motion to quash subpoena on docs
Roque was also ordered detained last month, but only for 24 hours, for supposedly lying to the same committee as to why he failed to attend the first hearing in Pampanga last week.
The former lawmaker is linked to Lucky South 99, the raided Pogo hub in Porac, Pampanga, after documents with his signature were found by operatives.
However, Roque has repeatedly denied having any links with the Pogo hub.
Read Next
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.